A Liberal but well written blog "Gun Advocacy and the Loss of Personal Control"

A Liberal but well written blog "Gun Advocacy and the Loss of Personal Control"

This is a discussion on A Liberal but well written blog "Gun Advocacy and the Loss of Personal Control" within the Off Topic & Humor Discussion forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Read this and let me know what you are thinking. Let me set the stage first. Todd is a friend and a cousin of mine. ...

A Liberal but well written blog "Gun Advocacy and the Loss of Personal Control"

Read this and let me know what you are thinking. Let me set the stage first. Todd is a friend and a cousin of mine. He was a long time resident of Hollywierd where he was a very successful musical composer for the movie industry. He is now living in Canada and is a psychotherapist. He comes from a military background: His father was an Annapolis grad, spent the entire WWII on ships in the Atlantic, and who worked in the Pentagon as a high ranking officer in the NCIS. Todd left home early and started his first career in California and was never in the service. I have jousted with him over gun issues many times but we have always done so in a respectful although disagreeing way. That said he is one of the few antis that seems to be able to present his thoughts in a reasonably well thought out way and actually listen to the other points of view.

Check out his blog and then let me/us know your feelings. I have as always mixed feelings. He's not totally off the track but for sure coming to his point of view from the left side of the page.

…in fact, owning guns may actually be a healthy psychological response in order to feel more secure and not act out the fear in other more destructive ways…

We could also not allow ourselves to be so saturated with issues we have no control over whatsoever,

Certainly we cannot put the fire out with more fire. That tactic is succumbing to the dark forces that can hide in the unconscious where we may be literally shaking with fear. Here we tend to reach for a simple yet ineffective tool we believe will give us the control we are so desperate for. We clearly must look deeper for solutions, digging down into our own psyches to see what is really moving us to make the decisions we are making. Very often the answer lies in between the black and the white, in the gray field of ambiguity, uncertainty, tension, and most certainly discomfort. All meaningful growth comes from this place—a place we seldom want to venture. Here we may actually find the control, or better yet, a personal influence we seek over our lives and the life of our national and global community—through constructive and positive thinking and conscious personal action.

With all due respect, his premise is that we are all emotionally and spiritually flawed because we are supporters of the second Amendment. He says as much by painting us as rational:

I am not implying that all of the arguments to curtail the government’s control over the ownership and sale of any sort of firearm are irrational.

And then uses a straw man..........

Right <sarcasm off>

Let's all get together and sing. He's a composer.

His summary reads something like this: We have all "lost control" (whatever that means), hence we are "failures" in a psychological sense. We have all "lost control", hence we cling to our guns as a metaphor to regain control. Here is the unwritten conclusion: Since we are "failures" emotionally, we are "dangerous" "emotionally" hence we should not be allowed guns, which make us more "dangerous".

No thanks. He is obviously gifted in some fashions, talented in some manners, but he is full of generalized HooHaa.

He's largely correct but his point of view doesn't include some of the reason for the lack of dialog. See Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind for an understaning of why the two sides cannot even begin to have a rational discussion on some of these issues. It is a stho one is speaking Greek and the other Swahili.

Until someone develops a way for the two sides to actually UNDERSTAND the others' fundamental basic psychological underpinings of their position, they will keep blabbing at each other and not communicating at all. AND, PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO COMMUNICATE since that would require that they grant some legitimacy to the others' point of view. We are now in an era of NO COMPROMISE even in debate.

His summary reads something like this: [/B] We have all "lost control" (whatever that means), hence we are "failures" in a psychological sense. We have all "lost control", hence we cling to our guns as a metaphor to regain control. Here is the unwritten conclusion: Since we are "failures" emotionally, we are "dangerous" "emotionally" hence we should not be allowed guns, which make us more "dangerous".

No thanks. He is obviously gifted in some fashions, talented in some manners, but he is full of generalized HooHaa.

Sorry.

No need to apologize: I've told him the same thing. To me it keeps proving how difficult any sort of reasonable compromise is possible in this as well as other unrelated issues currently are.

Of course the liberal mindset is at odds with personal accountability, personal responsibility and self determination. Why do we need that when we have the Government to provide for our health and welfare?

There exists a failure to identify evil in the world and deal with it as such. It's all a blame game and your buddy just has a larger vocabulary to put forth the same tired ideology.

Many years ago I lived with and almost married a Psychiatrist: PhD and all. Met many of her piers over those years. I can tell you from personal experience they are all really nice good & caring people and just about every one of them is a brick or two short of a full load. Guess it proves you have to join them to help them.

"We can also work toward exposing this unconscious complex I have described and bring it to the true light of conscious awareness."

Seriously dude, whatever. I studied engineering in college, and although I don't work as an engineer, it seemed like a good thing to study. If there was a problem, an engineer tries to find a practical way to fix it, which is akin to carrying a gun. The world is a messed up place with weird people, and the gun is the best solution in a lot of scenarios. But I also took a lot of philosophy electives because I found some of it interesting. At the end of the day, I found little meaning in most philosophers' work. The blogger reminds me of philosophy courses - a lot of people trying to be intellectual and profound, but never really saying anything at all.

Very often the answer lies in between the black and the white, in the gray field of ambiguity, uncertainty, tension, and most certainly discomfort. All meaningful growth comes from this place—a place we seldom want to venture. Here we may actually find the control, or better yet, a personal influence we seek over our lives and the life of our national and global community—through constructive and positive thinking and conscious personal action.

That right there tells me all I need to know about his words of "wisdom".

Now, if he could express those desires to all of the tryrants in this world, maybe he could have them all meet for some meaningful dialogue when sitting around a campfire,with legs crossed, while roasting marshmallows and when it was over they could sing "Cum By Ya" as a teambuilding exercise in postitive thinking. Yeah...that would make the world a better place to live.

Forgive me in advance for my blunt opinion on this. His opinion is not-so-cleverly disguised with elevated, academic meta-commentary fluff (I think the technical term is "psycho-babble") to call gun ownership a mental disease or defect. Since he is clearly against gun ownership (and his opinion is correct, since he has the fancy piece of paper written in Latin framed on his wall, right?), he is claiming that those who do not hold his same beliefs MUST have something "wrong" with them and un-enlightened (since the aforementioned piece of paper validates his opinion as truth).

That right there tells me all I need to know about his words of "wisdom".

Now, if he could express those desires to all of the tryrants in this world, maybe he could have them all meet for some meaningful dialogue when sitting around a campfire,with legs crossed, while roasting marshmallows and when it was over they could sing "Cum By Ya" as a teambuilding exercise in postitive thinking. Yeah...that would make the world a better place to live.

In the meantime, I'm keeping my AR-15...in case I "lose" control.

Yeah, calling me crazy, mentally ill, and an irrational "gun nut extremist," and then they want "meaningful dialogue"? Not a great way to open a line of communication.

So here is the basis of my idea: Gun advocacy is not a matter of personal protection or personal rights; it is a matter of loss of personal control.

This may at first glance seem to be a bit obvious and simplistic. Surely a powerful weapon can offer its user quite a bit of control. But control over what, and why?... The US Government?... [It] seems a bit illogical, but it is precisely what the 2nd Amendment is about, and from my own personal research, seems to be a primary impetus behind the furor of many gun advocates.

He's right when he implies that loss of personal (I like that he makes the issue, "personal", because we, individual persons, comprise the nebulous, collective "society", behind which attackers of 2A hide) control in having too many choices as a result of the "global bubble". But, more to the point, we are constantly in danger of losing personal control over the government. And when one recognizes that those who attack 2A present a false choice by a government without legitimate authority to challenge that right (barring formal repeal of 2A), one may rein in personal control.

In my introductory understanding of psychology, it is basically a study of behavior that satisfies a perceived (if the word applies to lower life forms) hierarchy of need. Both sides of the debate seek safety and security, secondary only to physiological need. Most who exercise their RKBA believe in the efficacy of responsible gun ownership to satisfy a part of their need of security. OTOH, most who attack 2A believe in the efficacy of a nebulous society to maintain a blanket security as long as the human community can integrate in an elusive Utopia.

In theory, in Physics, people can pass through walls. In theory, in Philosophy, people can live in absolute peace. Both claims are, in fact, impossible.

So "gun advocate" is a false choice. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they get? Any debate must point out the fallacies of those who attack 2A.

What I got out of it was--he can own an assault rifle and an atomic bomb to protect his liberties? And I thought I was pushing it with my thermo-nuclear hand grenades. Man, Oh Canada, here I come.

I'm not one to use a lot of words to make a simple point, but apparently he is--whatever that point may be. When the very framework of what our country is based upon says I have a right, I have that right. That framework, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights, says I have the right to keep and bear arms. That's my simple thought.

Retired USAF E-8. Curmudgeon at large.Lighten up and enjoy life because:Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep. It starts when you're always afraid... Buffalo Springfield - For What It's Worth